Coronel v. AK Victory
1 F. Supp. 3d 1175
W.D. Wash.2014Background
- Plaintiff Coronel, a seaman on the F/V Alaska Victory, sued in King County Superior Court for maintenance, cure, unseaworthiness, lost wages (general maritime law) and a Jones Act claim.
- Defendants AK Victory, Inc. and The Fishing Company of Alaska removed to federal court asserting admiralty/maritime jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 and § 1441(a).
- Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing maritime "saving-to-suitors" claims filed in state court are not removable absent an independent federal jurisdictional basis.
- Defendants relied on the 2011 amendments to the removal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1441) and recent district-court decisions to argue maritime claims are now removable under the plain language of § 1441(a).
- The court analyzed historical and precedent authority (notably Romero and its progeny), the saving-to-suitors clause, and the Jones Act/FELA nonremoval rule to evaluate removability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether general maritime (saving-to-suitors) claims filed in state court are removable to federal court under § 1441(a)/§ 1333 | Coronel: saving-to-suitors preserves state in-personam maritime claims; such claims are not removable absent independent federal jurisdiction (e.g., diversity) | Defendants: post-2011 § 1441(a) plain language plus removal amendments permit removal of any claim over which district courts have "original jurisdiction," including admiralty | Held: Remand granted — maritime claims filed in state court are not removable based solely on § 1333; removal requires an independent basis of federal jurisdiction (Romero line of cases) |
| Effect of 2011 amendments to § 1441 on removability of maritime claims | Coronel: amendments did not demonstrate congressional intent to alter long-standing rule; legislative history supports continuity | Defendants: the revised § 1441(b) language removed the prior limiting phrase, so maritime claims should be removable under § 1441(a) as originally phrased | Held: Court rejects defendants’ textual attack; historical precedent and Supreme Court decisions control — amendments did not eliminate the requirement of an independent jurisdictional basis |
| Whether defendants could convert a plaintiff’s state-law maritime claims into admiralty claims by removal | Coronel: allowing removal would vitiate saving-to-suitors and deprive plaintiff of choice (including jury right) | Defendants: removal to admiralty side is permissible because federal courts have original admiralty jurisdiction | Held: Court holds defendants cannot force conversion by removal; plaintiff’s election to sue at law in state court bars removal to admiralty absent other federal jurisdiction |
| Removability of the Jones Act claim | Coronel: Jones Act (via FELA) is statutorily nonremovable under 28 U.S.C. § 1445; it cannot be removed even with diversity | Defendants: Jones Act claim could be severed/treated differently if other claims were removable to admiralty; § 1441(c) may not apply when admiralty jurisdiction exists | Held: Jones Act claim is nonremovable; because the maritime claims were remanded, Jones Act claim remands too (§ 1445 nonremoval controls) |
Key Cases Cited
- Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (burden of removal on removing defendant; narrow construction of removal statutes)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (removal statute strictly construed; doubt favors remand)
- Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2001) (general maritime claims are not removable absent independent federal jurisdiction)
- In re Dutile, 935 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding admiralty claims required diversity for removal under prior § 1441(b) interpretation)
- Romero v. Int'l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (1959) (leading Supreme Court decision: saving-to-suitors preserves plaintiffs’ forum choice; maritime claims at law not cognizable on law side absent independent jurisdiction)
- Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (2001) (discusses saving-to-suitors and distinction between admiralty remedies and suits at law)
- Wilmington Trust v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Hawaii, 934 F.2d 1026 (9th Cir. 1991) (merger of admiralty and law dockets; plaintiff’s option to bring maritime claims in admiralty, in federal court on independent jurisdiction, or in state court)